Board approves 90‑day infiltration‑tracking pilot to target slip‑lining work

The Board of Public Works voted Aug. 26 to approve a proposal to deploy infiltration and inflow (I&I) tracking equipment supplied by Dukes, a contractor based in Illinois, to pinpoint sections of sewer main that need slip‑lining.

Kevin, a public works staff member, told the board the Missouri Rural Water Association selected Washington as a two‑year apprenticeship site and that Dukes ran trackers as part of that program. Kevin said the project’s mapping shows low‑flow areas in green and higher‑infiltration corridors in red and yellow and gave the board a map of target lines. “We now know we need to focus in this area,” Kevin said, identifying stretches on the west end and a long line through neighborhoods and the creek that influence the Walnut Street Lift Station.

The proposal packet displays red arrows on the map where Dukes would install equipment; the document lists a coverage length described in the transcript as “29 thousandths linear feet,” a phrasing that was unclear in the meeting record. Kevin said the contractor’s trackers run for a 90‑day monitoring window and that batteries are sized for about 90 days, with an option to extend the deployment for additional cost if there is insufficient rainfall during that period. “They do a 90 day run. That gives a good window of rain events that that should work out,” Kevin said.

Board members moved and seconded approval and the motion carried. Kevin said the work will be funded from the city’s slip‑lining fund; he told the board, “We have more than enough money in the slip lining fund,” and said the contractor would start within one to two weeks after what he described as expected approval by the city council on the 2nd. The board’s approval at this meeting is recorded as an affirmative motion; a council action referenced by staff remains a dependency for scheduling.

During discussion Kevin framed the monitoring as a targeted alternative to routine or ad hoc repairs: the data will guide televising, smoke testing and subsequent slip‑lining so crews can concentrate efforts on the red and yellow corridors instead of “throwing a dart at a wall.” He also said the equipment and results will help prioritize future work on the south side lines that feed the treatment plant.

Kevin provided operational context: during a recent heavy rainfall event the treatment plant handled roughly 18,000,000 gallons, of which he estimated about 7,000,000 gallons originated from the Walnut Street side; an additional roughly 5–6 million gallons came from the south side, he said. Those figures were presented as staff measurements from recent pumping records and were discussed as rationale for the I&I work.

The board record does not show a roll‑call vote tally by name. The motion’s outcome is recorded as approved; the project’s start date is contingent on the additional council approval staff referenced. The proposal document notes battery limitations for 90‑day deployments and an extra charge for extended deployments if rainfall is insufficient during the initial window.

The board packet and the staff presentation are the primary sources for mapping and the length figures; the transcript contains some unclear numeric phrasing that will require document review or vendor clarification before procurement or scheduling is finalized.